It is said a picture is worth a thousand words, this picture is worth at least ten million words.

Thanks to Obama, Holder, Sharpton, and Jackson, the racial division in our country has taken us back 50 years. Except there’s one huge difference between then and now. This picture explains it perfectly.

I can actually see this happening considering the Republicans are rolling over and playing dead.

So far Barry has said screw the Constitution and has been able to get away with doing so.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: John in Belleville, Pennsylvania, next up. Open Line Friday. How’s it going?

CALLER: Hello, Rush. It’s a thrill and an honor to get to talk to you.

RUSH: Thank you, sir, very much. I’m glad you made it through.

CALLER: First, I do want to say that that 90-something percent accuracy figure is incorrect. I’ve listened and I believe you’re 100%.

RUSH: Well, you’re very kind, sir.

CALLER: Now, my question — and I know I’ll sound like a kook. But assuming the Democrats can’t come up with anybody decent to win the presidency and the powers that push Obama’s buttons tell him to stay as president or stay on because of some created crisis, how in the world do we get him out of there? The Republicans don’t have the gall to do it, and I think the Supreme Court is pretty well left-leaning at this point. So how do we get rid of Obama if he decides to stay?

RUSH: Let’s put this in a scenario, because some of you might be thinking, “All right, Rush, you’re going too far now. All you guys thinking Obama’s doing this and doing that, he’s violating the Constitution. He would never do that!” Well, let’s construct a scenario and see if it has even the slightest bit of believability, and let’s establish some things that we know to be true that Obama also knows. Chief among those is that the Republican Party has said that impeachment is off the table.

More than once they’ve said this. The Republican Party has made it clear that they will not use that constitutional measure as a means of reining Obama in, and maybe even getting him out of office. They have also made it very clear in just the most recent vote on the funding for Department of Homeland Security that they will not use the power of the purse to stop Obama. Okay, so those duo realities equal Obama fully aware the Republican Party will take no steps to stop him in his ongoing violations and running up to the edges of the Constitution.

Now, let’s fast forward to, say, May, June of 2016.

Let’s say that Mrs. Clinton has withstood all of this e-mail stuff, that Elizabeth Warren has not gotten in the race, that Algore took the temperature and decided not to go, that it’s just Mrs. Clinton and Joe Biden. On the other side, the Republican field has a great list of possible candidates, and they will have by that time engaged in a vigorous debate which may have served to educate the country on the foibles and the problems of the past eight years, and the country may be looking forward to a dramatic change to Republican in the election of 2016.

Obama fully aware of this, would go on television and say that the Democrat field is so weak that he’s not confident that Mrs. Clinton can win. He might even take steps to make sure she can’t win. You know, sabotage her campaign. And then call a national speech to the nation in which the main point is that it’s beginning to look like the Republicans will win the White House, and this is something that he can’t risk. Not after eight courageous years of transforming America!

We just cannot put it all to the risk of being unraveled and undone by these racist, sexist, misogynist, whatever else Republicans. So as a service to the nation and to the nation, he is going to forget the Twenty-Second Amendment and either not leave office or run for reelection himself as the Democrat nominee. Just imagine that scenario. I don’t care how unreal it sounds, how unbelievable it sounds. Imagine it. What would anybody do? What would Mitch McConnell do? What would John Boehner do?

Mark Levin would have a heart attack.

I would probably have an aneurysm.

We’d be done.

What would anybody do? The Supreme Court would say, “Nobody has standing here! There’s no case yet. Obama hasn’t done anything yet. We can’t do anything about this until he actually serves a third term, and then you gotta bring the case to us.” What would anybody do if he says this? The media would be cheering it. Put all this in the mix. This guy’s out there thinking about this. It’s hard to believe, it’s so unlikely, but don’t think… Obama’s planning on staying in Washington part of time.

He’s got a plan to continue to live in Washington after he has left office for that exact reason. Whoever the next president is, Republican or Democrat, if that next president starts to unravel any of this, Obama’s on television every night. He knows he’s gonna have the media in his back pocket and whoever the next president is will not get away with anything without a huge fight from Obama. What would the Republicans do? (interruption) I think the odds are the Republicans might call an emergency constitutional convention and amend the Twenty-Second Amendment, permitting Obama to do this because their fear of being critical of Obama would destroy their chances of winning with the independents.

America is finally rid of Holder. What should have happened is Holder be placed in taxpayer-funded Department of Corrections bracelets and led straight to prison.

We all could have ALL celebrated then.

The party should have been like the Mafia, when they have a big party the day before a Mafioso will report to prison voluntarily.

Instead, the party was a reminder that Leftist celebrate nonsense, and these events are more of a marketing tool. The Left uses parties like this to convince the “lowest common denominator” citizen that Holder was one of the good guys. PSST!

Obama said that Holder was the 3rd longest service AG, as if that has significance. Holder needed that time to play CYA on his and Obama’s shenanigans!

Holder cried a bit at the conclusion of Obama’s remarks, sad that he would no longer be able to terrorize patriotic Conservative Americans.

The Queen of Soul, Aretha Franklin sang Holder into the sunset.

This truly is The Dark Ages 2.0 for the world, and Americans will look back on this period one day with disgust, though certainly more than half the country already has the feint taste of vomit, when we think about these Leftist scoundrels.

Read more at http://theblacksphere.net/2015/03/holder-gone-jailed-within-five-years/

“Known as a rising political star, the Hawaii Democrat is one of the first two female combat veterans elected to Congress. She did [two] tours in Iraq, and doesn’t hesitate to make her opinions known when it comes to defense issues. For instance, in 2013, she broke with the Obama administration by refusing to support airstrikes against Bashar al-Assad in Syria.”

In a 2013 piece for The Huffington Post, Gabbard explained her reasons for going against the administration on Syria:

“War is hell. But, as a soldier and combat veteran, I know it is sometimes necessary…Intervention of this sort requires a high bar for me to support–that it is in our nation’s security, diplomatic and moral interest…

The proposed intervention in Syria does not meet this test. I spent the last week with an open mind, examined the evidence, heard the Administration’s arguments…I have concluded that intervention in Syria goes against America’s national security, international credibility, economic interest, and moral center.”

Gabbard is no pushover, nor is she one to agree with the party line. Gabbard has made her opposition to President Obama’s refusal to label ISIS as “Islamic” known, appearing on both CNN, and Fox News to explain her concerns.

During an interview Wednesday with Fox’s Neil Cavuto, Gabbard explained her motivations in three parts:

First: If we don’t identify our enemies, we cannot defeat them.

“Unless you accurately identify who your enemy is, then you can’t come up with an effective strategy, a winning strategy to defeat that enemy. My concern here with the summit that’s happening right now in Washington is that it really is a diversion from what our real focus needs to be, and that focus is on this Islamic extremist threat that is posed not only to the United States and the American people, but around the world.”

Second: The administration’s explanations for extremism are incorrect.

“From what we’ve heard so far, the administration is really claiming that the motivation or the — the thing that’s fueling this terrorism, around the world, is something that has to do with poverty, has to do with a lack of jobs, or lack of access to education, really a materialistic motivation. And therefore, they are proposing that the solution must be to alleviate poverty around the world, to continue this failed Bush and Obama policy of nation building.”

Third: ISIS is radically theological, not simply materialistic.

“The danger here is, again, that you’re not identifying the threat, and you’re not identifying the fact that they are not fueled by a materialistic motivation, it’s actually a theological, this radical Islamic ideology that is allowing them to continue to recruit, that is allowing them to continue to grow in strength and really that’s really fueling these horrific terrorist activities around the world.”

Gabbard’s position against the President has garnered some bad press. The editorial board at The Honolulu Civil Beat published a scathing piece on Gabbard, arguing that her positions are simply semantics:

“Gabbard’s argument largely boils down to…dubious ideas…only in specifically, publicly tying terrorists to their religious ideology can the White House truly understand where the terrorist organizations recruit, how they think, etc. [and] his failure to use Gabbard’s preferred phrasing means he doesn’t ‘get’ any of this in the first place. Let’s be clear: These are not serious policy arguments.”

The article goes on to question Gabbard’s motivations for going against Obama, strongly implying that she simply wants to further her political career.

The attacks on Tulsi Gabbard date as far back as 2012, when The Daily Kosrailed against Gabbard, suggesting that ties to her father–a former State Senator–was a sign of nepotism, and a source of dangerous policy ideas.

Regardless of the ongoing attacks on her character, and her policy, Congresswoman Gabbard doesn’t seem to be interested in backing down.

Both President Reagan and President Obama had to deal with terrorist actions during their time in office, but their responses couldn’t be more different.

After ISIS beheaded several American citizens last summer, Obama said in a press conference:

I have consulted in Congress throughout this process. As our strategy develops we will continue to consult with Congress. But I don’t want to put the cart before the horse. We don’t have a strategy yet.

On April 14, 1986, while announcing air and naval strikes against Muammar al-Qaddafi and the Libyan regime, Reagan was emphatic in his resolve to eliminate any terrorist threat.

Colonel Qadaffi is not only an enemy against the United States….He has sanctioned acts of terror in Africa, Europe, and the Middle East…and for us to ignore by inaction the slaughter of American civilians and American soldiers, whether in nightclubs or in airline terminals, is simply not in the American tradition.

When our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world on direct orders of a hostile regime, we will respond so long as I’m in this Oval Office. Self defense is not only our right; it is our duty. It is the purpose behind the mission undertaken tonight, a mission fully consistent with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

He counted on America to be passive. He counted wrong.

There should be no place on earth where terrorists can rest and train and perfect their deadly skills. I meant it. I said that we would act with others if possible to ensure that terrorists have no sanctuary anywhere. Tonight, we have.

The differences don’t end there. The Obama administration has a high bar for what they consider “terrorism,” and the Taliban doesn’t qualify:

The Taliban is an armed insurgency, ISIL is a terrorist group. We don’t make concessions to terrorist groups.

That’s an important distinction to remember since the current President actually negotiated with the Taliban to free suspected military deserter Bowe Bergdahl.

In the Biblical tale of the Good Samaritan, the first two passersby who did nothing for the injured fellow were religious men. They had knowledge of how to exhibit kindness, but not the inclination. The man who ultimately assisted the injured stranger, on the other hand, would have been an enemy of the wounded, based on the culture at the time. Nevertheless, he went to great length and expense to have the wounded man cared for. He was a true ‘neighbor’ and a fitting example of kindness.

This video reminded me of the Good Samaritan. How ’bout you? Did you see the Biblical parable here?
Read more at http://joeforamerica.com/2014/12/black-family-white-cop-merry-christmas/

If a white person made the remarks about blacks the way Holder, Obama, Sharpton and De Blasio made about whites they would have been locked up.

Sadly, these racist thugs will be hailed as being bold by speaking out.

What do we call those who encourage others to commit criminal acts? That’s right. We call them “criminals.” Two New York City police officers are brutally murdered while sitting in their police cruiser. By now the world knows that the perpetrator was a young black man with an extensive criminal record who viewed police officers as the enemy—an enemy to be eliminated. But was Ismaalyl Brinsley alone in committing this heinous act? Hardly. Several other parties must share in the blame because they indirectly encouraged what happened on that tragic Saturday afternoon in New York. Who are those other parties? They are numerous, but prominent among them are Al Sharpton, Mayor DeBlasio, President Obama, and the mainstream media.

In the weeks leading up to the brutal slayings of Officers Liu and Ramos, Al Sharpton, Mayor DeBlasio, President Obama, and the mainstream media behaved in ways that make them culpable—morally if not legally—in this heinous crime committed by an angry young black man who had a criminal record as long as your arm. Brinsley’s assassination of two police officers was not an isolated incident. Based on what we now know about this long-time criminal, he was a hate-filled, angry young man who harbored an us-against-them attitude toward the police. All he needed to push him over the edge was a little encouragement, and that he got plenty of that from Sharpton, DeBlasio, the mainstream media, and other irresponsible race hustlers who in the weeks leading up to the murders continually portrayed police officers in the worst possible light. President Obama—ever the politician rather than a leader—was careful not to overdo it with negative statements about the police, but it was clear from he said and did not say where he stood concerning incidents in which young black men have run afoul of the law.

It started with the Trayvon Martin case when the mainstream media continually portrayed Martin as an innocent young boy who had been brutally murdered by an overzealous neighborhood watcher. Recall that the photos most often shown of Martin were from when he was a cute little twelve-year old kid. The media studiously avoided showing the grown-up, pot smoking thug who confronted George Zimmerman on that tragic night. The clear message from the mainstream media was that racism was the cause of Trayvon Martin’s death. The media never even considered that Martin’s own irresponsible actions might have contributed to his death.

What was President Obama’s contribution to the simmering racial discord during the Trayvon Martin tragedy? Did he show some leadership and try to calm the anger and frustration that had been stirred up by the mainstream media’s blatantly biased reporting on the incident? No, instead of acting like a leader President Obama indulged in his own brand of racial pandering by claiming that Trayvon Martin might could been his son. Of course once the facts came out, the world saw a much different Trayvon Martin than the one Obama claimed as his erstwhile son, but by then the president had made his contribution to stirring up anger and resentment in the black community.

Then there was the Ferguson, Missouri debacle where we saw Al Sharpton and the mainstream media at their race-hustling worst. Once again the mainstream media portrayed the deceased young black man as a poor innocent soul murdered by a racist police officer who worked for a racist police department. Once again, President Obama failed in his role as a leader, refusing to use his stature as president to calm a powder- keg situation. As a result of encouragement from irresponsible media outlets, the race hustling of Al Sharpton, and the leadership failings of the president, Ferguson, Missouri was looted, pillaged, and burned on national television. Yet the media portrayed the police, not the looters and arsonists, as the bad guys. The media, Sharpton, and the president steadfastly refused to admit that the person who caused Michael Brown’s death was none other than Michael Brown.

Then came the take-down of Eric Garner in New York City. Garner died following the incident, although it now appears that his death was caused by his obesity and other related health problems rather than the take down. In spite of this, the mainstream media ignored the facts of Garner’s health problems and criminal record and portrayed the police as brutal, racist killers who had it in for young black men. It was at this point that Mayor DeBlasio joined the debate over supposed police brutality and racism. His contribution can best be described as pathetic pandering, but it had the effect of stirring the pot and making matters worse. Like President Obama, DeBlasio failed to use the stature of his position to reveal the facts in the case and calm an explosive situation. Instead he pandered to the black community, portraying Eric Garner—a man who was breaking the law and had a long criminal record—as an innocent victim of police brutality. Not a word from the mayor in support of the NYPD and the life-and-death struggle they face every day on the streets of his city while trying to protect law-abiding citizens. And, of course, there was Al Sharpton doing his usual race-hustling routine.

What in the world did Al Sharpton, Mayor DeBlasio, President Obama, and the mainstream media think was going to happen? You can stir up racial discord only so long before the top blows off and bad things happen. I will leave Al Sharpton out of the discussion for the moment because what happened in New York is probably exactly what he wanted to happen. But we should be able to expect better from the Mayor of America’s largest city, the President of the United States, and the mainstream media. Every police officer in the United States who patrols in a black community now has a target painted squarely on his or her back, regardless of the officer’s race. It is police officers—not just white police officers—that have been painted with the broad brush of media bias, a situation made worse by the poor leadership of elected officials.

The protestors in Ferguson, Missouri, New York City, and numerous other cities across the United States have uniformly and not a little self-righteously demanded justice. I agree there should be justice in these situations. Here is what justice would look like: 1) If Al Sharpton were sent to prison for encouraging murder (not to mention owing $4.5 million in unpaid taxes), 2) If President Obama and Mayor DeBlasio were forced to resign for failing to take appropriate, responsible action to prevent murder, and 3) If the mainstream media were censored and fined for knowingly instigating actions that led to looting, burning, and now murder.
Read more at http://patriotupdate.com/articles/nypd-murders-guilty-parties-sharpton-deblasio-obama-media/

I like folks from Canada. I’ve had close friends who are Canadian, and my impression is that they are genuinely nice people.

But every group apparently has crackpots.

Take this guy: Richard Brunt wrote a letter to The Detroit Free Press actually titled, “America doesn’t know how good they have it with Obama.” Yes, really.

He says that many Canadians don’t understand why Americans gave the smackdown to Democrats in the recent mid-term elections. He says that Obama lowered unemployment rates, lowered gas prices, got Osama Bin-Laden, and made the U.S. a leader in the world again and… get this… respected in the world again.

Now, I don’t know what Kool-Aid this guy has been drinking, and I don’t know where he is getting his information, but I have never gotten the impression that Obama brought “respect” to the U.S. internationally. Respect? Really?!?

And, how about those gas prices and decreased unemployment? Maybe this guy doesn’t understand how the unemployment rate has been recalculated to make it look good because areal unemployment rate of 12.6% doesn’t look low or lowered to me. And it still costs out the nose to fill up my gas tank.

Brunt actually says that the U.S. “deficit is rapidly declining.” Interesting, because it really sounds like he is confusing deficit and debt. Just to be clear:

Debt: Total owed from past and present borrowing. Deficit: This year’s borrowing.

You can get more detail about the deficits over the past two administrations here. The point to be made is this, though: it doesn’t matter if the deficit is decreasing if there is no surplus because the amount of debt will keep increasing without a surplus to pay it off.

So, wow, Obama decreased the amount of budget deficit from some of his previous years. Woo-hoo, I’m excited now because that just means that he slowed how quickly we’re digging a hole. Itdoes not mean that the hole is getting smaller or being filled in to get us back to level ground.

So, he misuses terms and makes questionable assertions and then says that voting for candidates that lean toward Tea Party policies “defies reason.”

What really defies reason is this guy’s Liberal Logic and his closing request: “When you are done with Obama, could you send him our way?” Let me tell you, Mr. Brunt, if Biden didn’t scare me so much, I’d ask you to take Obama now.

This sounds really good the big question is will the GOP pull the trigger to start this fight?

I have my doubts.

Editor’s note this was scheduled at 1600 I screwed up and put the wrong day.

The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee says Congress should “go to court very quickly” to stop President Obama if he decides to act alone on immigration by deferring deportations and offering work permits to millions of people in the U.S. illegally.

“If the president were to take further action, I believe it would be very important for Congress to undertake a challenge to that,” said Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, at a Heritage Foundation event about Obama’s use of executive action.

“I would hope we would go to court very quickly and seek an injunction restraining the administration from granting those kind of work authorizations that I don’t think the law in any way provides for,” Goodlatte said.

Obama said last month that he plans to put off executive action on immigration until after the November midterm elections, citing the surge of unaccompanied children who flooded the U.S. border with Mexico this summer—and political concerns—as the reasons for the delay.

Even though the House has rebuffed attempts to revive comprehensive immigration reform during the border crisis this summer, Goodlatte said Obama should work with Congress to make anchangesto current policy.

Goodlatte argues that because Obama announced he would act alone, it discouraged Democrats from undertaking serious negotiations in Congress.

“Most people feel immigration reform is needed, but there’s disagreement on what it should be,” Goodlatte said.

But when you try to bring legislative bodies together and you have to work out the differences and in the middle of that the president says, ‘Here is my list of things … and if you don’t do it I will,’ those who agree with the president’s policies can sit back and say, ‘Well I don’t need to enter into tough negotiations about what needs to be done to enforce the law or reform the law and instead, I will just wait for the president to act.’

Besides effectively expanding his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which delays deportation for certain immigrants who came to the United States illegally as children, Obama is also expected to pursue changes that would produce more legal visas for people wanting to work in the United States.

No matter the form of action, Goodlatte vowed to fight it.

“The president does not have the authority to act,” Goodlatte said. “We should challenge.”